POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

The first change of heading select to start the aircraft back toward the pentagon is at 12:54:11 according to the cvs file.

That means it took Hani Hanjour a little over 3 minutes to bust into the cockpit, point a boxcutter at Charles Burlingame and told him and the First Officer to go to the back of the aircraft. Charles Burlingame gave up his airplane in a little over 3 minutes to a hijacker with a boxcutter. Charles Burlingame..a 6'5 Military trained Captain, trained in Anti-Terrorism...

Regardless of what the press may have told you about the old Common Strategy of "Full cooperation", this was not part of it. The old Common strategy was to take hijackers where they wanted to go, if they had more than a boxcutter, but not to give up your airplane... and certainly not in a little over 3 minutes. The Captains number 1 priority is passenger safety. How does that fit with this scenario?

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Aug 24 2006, 08:38 PM)

The last call to ATC from the pilots is as follows

The first change of heading select to start the aircraft back toward the pentagon is at 12:54:11 according to the cvs file.

That means it took Hani Hanjour a little over 3 minutes to bust into the cockpit, point a boxcutter at Charles Burlingame and told him and the First Officer to go to the back of the aircraft. Charles Burlingame gave up his airplane in a little over 3 minutes to a hijacker with a boxcutter. Charles Burlingame..a 6'5 Military trained Captain, trained in Anti-Terrorism...

Regardless of what the press may have told you about the old Common Strategy of "Full cooperation", this was not part of it. The old Common strategy was to take hijackers where they wanted to go, if they had more than a boxcutter, but not to give up your airplane... and certainly not in a little over 3 minutes. The Captains number 1 priority is passenger safety. How does that fit with this scenario?

Two minutes later.. the transponder was turned off at 12:56:35.

Yet Ted Olson lied about talking to Barbara Olson according to the FBI at the Zacharias Moussaoui Show Trial.

The entire official Flight 77 inside the cabin fairy tale is rendered moot. It didn't happen. Fiction. And Captain Burlingame just would not have handed over the controls and an inexperienced pilot could not have handled the alleged blind descending turn to the right ending up pointed directly at the Pentagon.

Official Descending Turn Over Virginia

Official RADES Descending Turn With Falsified C-130 Path To The Southwest

Actual Decoy Aircraft Flight Path Around Reagan And C-130 Flight Path From the North West

QUOTE

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.